I think it is when you apply to a table "F" the axioms of reflexivity, augmentation and transitivity, the result is F+, which means that you can not apply any more axioms...i am not really sure i dont seem to get this subject please explain to me cuz i ahve been reading for a couple of days and nothiing, THANKS...

Armstrong was a great thinker, but not an exemplary writer. The information behind his "Axioms" (which are really inference rules in my opinion) si complete for each of the inference expressions, but I can't think of any way to state the "unified field theory" that he presented in his paper any way but algebrarically.

It is good solid set theory and mathematics, but very difficult to explain in terms of the real world. I can find good instances and examples that demonstrate how the collection of inference rules work, and I can contrive a demonstration of a fair approximation of the whole shebang, but my understanding of the "whole tamale" is not concrete enough to be able to contrive a real world example of how and why the inference rule set is important as a whole.

-PatP

Yea i may need an example because i cant get this very well, thanks...

watch this. This will clearly explain armstrong axioms

UHCL Databases Armstrong's Axioms - YouTube